About your Search

20130706
20130714
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
the deficit and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country, not only today but even the worse debt we'll be facing given the current trend we're on in the future. mr. chairman, remember when we were told to get our tires properly inflated and people snickered saying, is this an energy policy? well, at least those ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost. albeit a drop in the bucket. but now in one of its latest efforts, along comes the department of energy and proposes a regulation to impose destructive and unnecessary energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. and like much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. it's big government run amuck, another example. it's an example of the complete disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations that they issue. the department of energy contends that a certain amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as the gentlelady mentioned and explained. now, of course, that ignores the fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy e
to the deficit? no. instead we are recklessly pushing forward this partisan bill designed to inflict grave harm. and even more pernicious is the substance of this bill which throws millions of american families aside. this removes the entire nutrition title from the farm bill with no indication that the majority intends to take up those programs in the near future. let's be clear about what this means. food stamps are the critical central area of our social safety net. helping over 47 million americans, nearly half of them are children. 99% of recipients live below the poverty line. 75% of households leaving this aid include a child, a senior citizen or an individual with a disability. these are the individuals and republican hat this majority has just called extraneous. they are not extraneous. the bill before us would mean he death now of the food stamp program, the other nutrition programs that have been part of the farm bill for decades. this bill is immoral and it is a serious risk to our society. 532 farm groups sent the speaker a letter opposing the splitting off of nutrition program. bi
in the future and paying off our deficit. we simply cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research, the private sector can do better and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits. our energy sector has some of the of the most promising ideas and technologies in the world. our energy policy, however, is horribly outdated. h.r. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by some 60% and adds additional money that the administration either want -- neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. at the same time it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel r&d. in fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country. more than $500 billion in 2011. and they often go to expensive projects with little upside. the fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. fossil fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest profits in the world, and they can shoulder than other r&d costs. -- their own r&d costs. this is a clear example of dupl
. host: we'll let you go there. guest: i think that the trade deficit had been an issue for the u.s. there have been a lot of jobs, essentially we opened up ourselves to the world from a global trade perspective and we didn't really put a lot of emphasis on making sure that the other countries that we were doing business with had, say, the same labor standards, the same pay levels. so many american workers were thrown into competition with a huge global competition with workers willing to be paid a lot less. so a lot of that work was transferred there. some people say that's the way it goes and how the global economy moves around. that might be the case. but that doesn't mean there aren't jobs americans can't do. and the definition of doing something that your caller -- i agree that there are do-nothing jobs in every organization probably. but the point that your caller was making i think there are -- the definition of doing something is very broad and there are a lot of thing that is need to be done in this country including services jobs that aren't getting filled by the private
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)